This assumes the level of competence never before seen in any government, ever. In other words, classic conspiracy theory, aka bullshit.
~~Link?~~ Thanks for adding the link! Neat!
However:
The principal of creating deep pictures is registered for patent in Germany and Japan, where all major camera industry is settled.
Fuck patents.
Semi-related, this fantastic talk (mainly about racism) makes a great point on how systems we participate in (often not being able to not participate in them!) can make certain characteristics of our psyche more pronounced than they would otherwise be.
tl;dr when playing Monopoly, it's very easy to be greedy, as that's what the system of the game promotes.
Same with capitalism.
🤝
Having a van that picks up a few people on an as-needed basis and drops them off at a transit stop makes a lot of sense.
What I am saying is this right there should be a part of a public transit system.
Small vans and self-driving cars that help people from sprawled suburbs reach their subway or local rail lines, or a bigger avenue where big buses go, make all the sense as part of such a public transit system. As long as these cars/vans are community-managed like the rest of the public transit system, it makes perfect sense to me.
So it's not about self-driving cars/vans vs. public transit, just as it's not about buses vs. public transit or trains vs. public transit. The reason I reacted like I did is because your post makes it seem as if it is a "self-driving cars/vans vs. public transit", is all. 🙂
You're describing public transit though.
If a cafe wants to enforce a “no phones” rule, they can do so relatively effectively. If a website wants to enforce a “no robots” rule (especially if they also want to not require any login to view the content on the site) they can ultimately only pretend to be able to do that effectively.
But you're again conflating the issue of consent and enforcement. There are things we are able to do but we know to ask first before we do them. The fact that something is possible doesn't mean that it's allowed. The fact that something is not easy to enforce against does not make it okay to do it anyway.
What about public parks? Is it okay to walk around you while you're having a conversation and record you, and then post that conversation on-line? Is it okay to use directional microphones to record you in such a setting? Doesn't the whole recording-in-the-park thing from the Conversation give you the creeps?
Are you saying that the fact that something is difficult to enforce against makes it okay to do, even if the person you do this to does not want it done?
But unlisted toots are still technically public. If you scrape my profile, you will get them. And the point is: the fact that they are public in the technical sense does not mean I consented to them being scraped etc.
Just as wearing a short skirt is not blanket consent to sexual advances.
You technically can, and if you get caught the cafe can (and should, imo) kick you out for doing so.
Right, so we agree here. But you did not respond to the second question: are cafés public or private spaces?
I’m a big proponent of enforcing privacy in online and offline spaces with technology, policy, and social norms. I’m also opposed to magical thinking. Telling people that they can semi-publish, to have some of the benefits of publishing without some of the consequences, is misleading to the point of being dishonest.
Nobody is saying that. Nowhere in the thread I linked is that being said. Nowhere in my comments did I say that. It's not about telling people they can or cannot "semi-publish", it's about telling people creating systems and products that they need to ask these people for permission to do certain things.
Or in other words: it's not about telling café patrons they can or can't have perfectly private conversations in the café, it's about telling anyone who might want to potentially record conversations in that café "you have to ask and receive permission for this first". That's a pretty crucial difference.
Sure, I think we basically agree.
There are things that are impossible without JS, and there are things that are possible without it but JS is still the better choice for implementing them — as long as it's not the bloated mess, pulling random libraries from a dozen third party services, that we know and "love" from a lot of websites. And as long as there is graceful degradation built-in.
No. No they do not agree on that!
(from one of the links above)
Enough with the "experts agree AI is great" bullcrap already!